Obama's Electability Question

There has been some out-loud wondering around the internet about Senator Obama's electability. Some (Hillary supporters) worry that Barack will wilt in the mighty military shadow that John "Methusaleh" McCain (In Hebrew "Methusaleh" means, "when he is dead it shall come." - not a very promising moniker, it seems - I'd be looking very carefully at McCain's choice of a running mate, I'm just saying...). I myself am looking forward to a debate that will present a vivid contrast between what was (McCain) and what will be (Obama). I think that the contrast between an old wheezing geezer and a young African-American man will bring the choice that America will be charged with making in November all the clearer. I'm betting that American will go with true change, real hope, a decisive new course that will take us not further down the road of the Bush/Cheney lost, immoral, illegal and dishonest causes, but instead will launch us in a new direction, a path that promises new wisdom, fresh diplomatic foreign policy, an economic plan that won't rob the poor of their very livelihood to make the rich wealthier. I see Barack Obama as the face of a new America, and John McCain as a tired old Washington insider who is willing to sell his soul, willing to say anything, to change any position to placate the far right-wing of the republican party to get himself elected including the astounding reversal of his stand against waterboarding as torture.

I can't help but smell another stinky campaign tactic that is coming from the Clinton camp in this most recent attempt to worry the Democratic party faithful about Barack Obama's electability. It is no coincidence that this has been the major worry of many Democrats about Hillary Clinton's potential nomination. I just don't think that Obama brings the same baggage to the race that the Clintons bring with them. And I think that every poll taken since McCain became the inevitable republican nominee demonstrates this thesis. Obama routinely beats McCain by a sizeable margin while Clinton runs neck and neck with McCain, and if the race is that close, I wouldn't put it past Karl Rove to come up with another stolen election. That is a scenario for which I would have a very difficult time forgiving my Hillary-supporting friends/acquaintances. Here're the polls I'm talking about.

Check out Jack Cafferty's recent blog post: Who Would Win the McCain-Obama Generational Battle?

Check out the John.He.Is video that demonstrates a few reasons why a McCain presidency would be an extension of the idiot-in-chief who's in the white house now: McCain - Like Hope, But Different

Check out Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maoddow on Countdown: John McCain’s Tortured Logic And Flip Flop On Torture (via Crooks and Liars)

Check out this recent story: McCain's Sharp Tongue: an Achilles Heel? (Washington Post, February 16, 2008)

Obama Beer

Could this be an answer to the violence that has erupted in Kenya (i.e. Senator Obama's first foreign policy success)? The beer is reported to be really strong and very cheap. I think it portends favorably for Barack Obama and the upcoming races - I'll have another Obama, please - hic =)

Let Them Eat Crab Cakes

With the polls in Virginia closed and the polls in DC and Maryland open until 9:30pm (those polling places are staying open for an extra 90 minutes due to icy weather and a tremendous turn-out), yet another victory is Senator Obama's - yeah =) Hard as it may be to be a gracious loser, it can be equally difficult sometimes to be a victor who is not perceived to be a braggart, a bully or worse. And as thrilled as today's results may make me feel, a few phrases keep ringing in my head - one is a statement made by Susan Estrich on the Stephanie Miller Show and that is "Lots of people have gone broke betting against the Clintons," and the old adage that "It ain't over 'til the fat lady (or the super delegate) sings." In other words, we got a whole lotta primaries left to go, including several big states voting on March 4th - among them Texas and Ohio, with Pennsylvania looming out there in April (22nd). Both Clinton and Obama have their strong suits - their key demographics. It is no secret that Obama's voters tend to be younger, more affluent and better educated, while Clinton does well with older white women and the working class.

But the primaries were not the only political news to come out of the Potomac area today. Today there was an important vote that took place in the Senate - a vote so important that only three senators did not show up to express an opinion on this burning issue. The issue was whether to grant immunity to the telecom corporations who ostensibly broke no laws (then why do they need immunity, I'm just asking?) when they gave the Bush administration the wherewithal to spy on all Americans WITHOUT a warrant. The three senators who declined to cast their vote on this highly significant piece of legislation were Lindsey Graham, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, although Senator Obama did cast a vote on the initial call of the bill, and Senator Clinton sent in a note explaining that she would have voted for the amendment to cancel the immunity has she been there to cast her vote (which she was not).

Personally, I have never expected much from Senator Graham, that right-wing Bushite from South Carolina who was no doubt busy chasing down John McCain to see about the veep position, but Hillary Clinton, well Hillary Clinton, I did expect that she would at least show up given that today's primaries were right there in the neighborhood - she barely had to swing out of her campaign orbit to show up in the Senate long enough to cast her vote. Barack Obama made it to cast a vote early on in the day (although as I have already acknowledged Obama did not participate in the final vote). Which leads me to ask a simple question - who is really watching out for you inside the beltway these days? The amendment that would have stripped this noxious piece of legislation of the vile immunity clause went down to defeat (68 nays - 29 yeas), and I grant you that Senator Clinton's and Senator Obama's votes would not have made a difference, but it would have made a difference to me - a liberal middle-aged white woman living in the heart of red America. It would have made a difference to me had Hillary and Barack taken a few minutes out of their busy campaign schedules to cast a vote not just against immunity for the law-breaking telecom industry, but a vote for innocent Americans who are looking to Congress as the last firewall against the complete erosion of our still precious freedoms. I am more than disappointed tonight, I am angry beyond words...

Senate Rejects Bid to Strip Phone Companies' Immunity (Bloomberg, February 12, 2008)

Can Obama Charm the Superdelegates?

Superdelegate - what the hell is a superdelegate?

Well, if you are a political novice (and there's nothing wrong with that =) here's the definition from Wikipedia. However, if you already know that "superdelegate" is just another word for nothin' left to lose (no wait, that's a song ;), rather superdelegates are nothing more than unelected delegates that go to the Democratic Convention (in August in Denver, CO) foot-loose and fancy-free and can cast their vote for whomever strikes them as the most appealing candidate at the moment. Check out the following site 2008 Democratic Convention Watch for a complete list of those superdelegates who have already pledged to vote for one candidate or the other. But beware, the superdupers can be a fickle lot and may switch their allegiances or a whim or a dime (and those are the ones that worry me...). What, you may be wondering, is the cost of a superduperdelegate's vote? Well, this is pure speculation from a political outsider (I live in Tulsa, Oklahoma for god's sake), but my guess is that since all of these supers are already political big wigs it takes a promise of some cushy position in the candidate's nascent administration or a rather large campaign contribution - but my guess is that by August all of the politicos will have long since maxed out to their fave, so it won't be about the moolah as much as it will be about the political clout that the super may get in return for their vote.

So watch this group of ultra-politicos, and don't let them subvert the will of the electorate. I say whoever goes into the Convention with the most earned delegates gets the nod. I'm not predicting a 1968 kinda riot if the super delegates chose let's say a political insider over a more popular, fresher face, but should the will of all of those young voters who got into the game because they were inspired by that fresh face be thwarted at the convention by a bunch of party big wigs - well, let's just say I wouldn't blame them if they decided that the game is rigged and it just ain't worth trying to play. And that would be a tragedy, not just for the Democratic Party, but for America and its future...

Democratic National Convention 2008 Blog

Check out the always-on-the-mark David Sirota's Local Pressure Builds on Superdelegates.

Obama Coming on Strong

"I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars....There are battles that we need to fight. There are battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."
Senator Barack Obama, October 2002

Barrow, Alaska Residents for Obama
(Courtesy of Ben Smith's Blog on Politico.com)

Super Tuesday was nothing but a long night of little sleep for us political geeks who stayed up to watch and see who would take California - congratulations Senator Clinton (and a nod to Hillary's strongest doggie-supporter, Roxie of Roxie's World, whose predictions turned out to be spot on). Still, I think that we still got us a real race here in America and that to my mind is the real story of Super Tuesday. May I remind readers that only a few short months ago Hillary Clinton had the national polls all but sown up with a double-digit lead, and now that lead has all but disappeared with the delegate count virtually tied. Senator Obama raised three dollars for every single dollar raised by the Clinton camp in January 2008, a significant fact given that this race may go on for the long haul and every dime raised will be spent.

It is significant that Senator Obama excels in the caucus format and that in the upcoming contests, three of the four next races are caucuses (Nebraska and Washington State on February 9, Maine on February 10). For a complete primary calendar see the NYTimes Election Guide 2008. Plus there is the momentum thing - and Obama's got it by the boatload. My money is still on Senator Barack Obama. And given the apparent reality that the the GOP (with the emphasis on OLD) will indeed run John "Methuselah" McCain on the top of their ticket, the Democratic choice becomes even more strategic. I have maintained all along that there is only one politician who can mobilize the right-wing base to go to the polls (even more than Old Man McCain could convince the GOP faithful to stay home) and that politician in Senator Hillary Clinton. I'm just saying...

And what's this I hear about Hillary Clinton agreeing to a debate on Faux News? I hate the smell of desperation in the morning, and sorry Camp Clinton that is the whiff I'm getting from you all. First it was the suspect after-the-fact Michigan victory claim ('scuse me, but weren't there only two names on the ballot in Michigan - yours and Mr. Kucinich's), then it was the bogus partay that Hillary flew into Florida to throw for herself after that dubious win, and now she's ignoring many good reasons from every thinking Democrat and agreeing to sell herself out to Faux News. I hope that Senator Clinton is left debating by herself on this horrendus excuse for a news channel - shame on you, Senator Clinton =(

Bob Harris compares Clinton and Obama on Iraq.

And Then There Were Two (Obama & Clinton)

Nevermind Cynthia McKinney ("Oh no you don't, grrrlfriend, don't you even think about running for president for no Green Party. You'll be setting us up for 4 if not 8 more years of the same old heartache that we been suffering through since 2000. I don't care how pure you think your campaign is, how high-minded, how righteous and green you think your party is, you ain't nothing but a spoiler, and you ain't gonna spoil my celebration when a Black man or a woman gets close enough to the White House to smell the coffee brewing in the oval office. I sure as sh*t ain't voting for you if it means that we have to live in president mccain's world just so that you can get your vote on. Oh no, grrrlfriend, you ain't gonna go all Ralph Nader on our ass, you ain't getting my vote, or a thin dime of my hard-earned money.")

The above tirade was chanelled through me from my old pal Waylene Dixon, a hair (& nails) salon owner in Kokomo, Indiana who isn't afraid to speak truth to power (even when the power may be in the form of an outspoken African-American former Congresswoman from Georgia).

Ever since Ralph Nader added to the likelihood that Bush/Cheney could more easily steal the presidency, I have not had any use whatsoever for third party candidates. They are usually spoilers, nothing more, nothing less. Of late they have sprung from left-of-center and appeal to those purer-than-thou voters who just won't compromise their principles for a victory that would probably be a much better alternative than the outcome that their votes might produce. I agree wholeheartedly with my friend Waylene, and I encourage all of you to just say "No" to Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader or Michael Bloomberg. Vote for a bonafide Democrat for a change. If you live in any of the 22 states that hold their primary elections tomorrow - get out there and vote for the Democratic candidate of your choice. Just do it =)

So Long to 8 Horrendous Years

Sally Anthony "So Long"
I just wanted to post a video of disturbing images that I hope will serve to remind everyone of the importance of voting in not just your primary election (which for many of us is next Tuesday, February 5th), but also in the general election in November, and please make sure that your vote represents a true change away from the criminal course of the current administration that is responsible for all of these disturbing images. In other words - vote for the Democratic candidate because any of the GOP clowns will just perpetuate the same Bush/Cheney horrible, evil policy. Don't stay home, don't leave this decision to your neighbors or co-workers, stand up for yourself and your family, vote for an America of which we can all be proud. Vote DEMOCRATIC!!! Do it for yourself and for future generations. Thank you.

Important Victory in Cobell Litigation

Judge calls Cobell historical accounting 'impossible'

Yesterday, Judge James Robertson ruled that a government accounting is impossible after hearing arguments in a ten day trial last next October. After 11 years of litigation in the courts and debate in Congress, Judge Robertson on Wednesday declared an historical accounting of the Indian trust "impossible." Robertson took over the case after Judge Royce Lamberth was removed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in July 2006, which said he had lost his objectivity.

The government had asked that Lamberth be replaced after the Judge Lamberth lambasted the Interior Department, writing in a decision that labelled the Department of Interior "is a dinosaur _ the morally and culturally oblivious hand-me-down of a disgracefully racist and imperialist government that should have been buried a century ago."

In his decision, Robertson detailed the extensive background of the case, saying that it would "stretch the limits of understatement" to say the case's history has been exhaustively chronicled in district court. He noted there are 3,504 entries on the case's docket and 10 circuit judges have been engaged in the case. His opinion will have the shorthand of "Cobell XX," he noted.

In a 165-page decision, Judge James Robertson said the Interior Department is "unable to perform an adequate accounting" of the Individual Indian Money (IIM) trust. The government "has not" and "cannot" cure its breach of trust to hundreds of thousands of Indian beneficiaries who have never been told how much money they are owed for the use of their land, he wrote.

"Indeed, it is now clear that completion of the required accounting is an impossible task," said Robertson, who describe the breach of trust as "irreparable."

The upshot of this historic decision is to finally establish a powerful place from which Native plaintiffs may negotiate with the federal government who has been one of the most egregious foot-dragging defendents in the history of all litigation. The Cobell Lawsuit (AKA the Trust Fund Litigation) is a class action lawsuit filed in 1996 by Elouise Cobell on behalf of herself and thousands of other similarly situated Natives across America which asked that the federal government account for all outstanding individual Indian moneys that have been "held in trust" or otherwise (mis)managed under the guise of the "Trust Responsibility" established through treaties and other agreements with Indian people.

"This is a great day in Indian Country," Cobell said yesterday. "We've argued for over ten years that the government is unable to fulfill its duty to render an adequate historical accounting, much less redress the historical wrongs heaped upon the individual Indian trust beneficiaries."

"Instead of truthfully seeking to remedy the government's admitted historical mismanagement, the government elected to fight plaintiffs every step of the way," she said. "Judge Robertson has settled the debate in favor of plaintiffs and found that an adequate historical accounting is, in fact, impossible."

The government proposed paying $7 billion partly to settle the Cobell lawsuit in March 2007, but that was rejected by the plaintiffs, who estimate the government's liability could exceed $100 billion. The Interior Department estimates that it has spent $127 million on its accounting in the past five years.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, said Wednesday that he hopes the judge's decision is a catalyst for a settlement.

"Ultimately the question is going to be for the administration and the Justice Department, are they willing to settle for all of these years of mismanagement," he said.

Judge Hits Gov't on Indian Money Delay (Washington Post, January 30, 2008)

For complete access to all of the documents filed in over eleven years of litigation, please visit: Indian Trust: Cobell v. Kempthorne

Pioneer Editorial: Judge gives the Dickens to Interior (Bemidji Pioneer, January 31, 2008)

Oh, No He (Bush) Doesn't!!!

Bush has issued yet another signing statement that we as a people cannot ignore. This one should immediately force the Congress to bring impeachment charges against Bush/Cheney. Bush has announced his right or his intention to ignore four components of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008. The four points of law that Bush is stating that he may disregard at his pleasure include the portions of the Act outlined in the following sections:

Subtitle D--Accountability in Contracting
Sec. 841 Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sec. 846. Protection for contractor employees from reprisal for disclosure of certain information.
Sec. 1079. Communications with the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Sec. 1222. Limitation on availability of funds for certain purposes relating to Iraq.

Whether this is a consitutional action for the president to take is fairly clear - IT IS NOT.

The following commentary on the impact of the signing statement is from the Boston Globe, "Bush Asserts Authority to Bypass Defense Act," (January 30, 2008).

"Some legal specialists disagreed with the administration's legal theory.

'Congress clearly has the authority to enact this limitation of the expenditure of funds for permanent bases in Iraq,' said Dawn Johnsen, an Indiana University law professor who was the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration.

Bush's frequent use of signing statements to advance aggressive theories of executive power has been a hallmark of his presidency. Previous presidents occasionally used the device, but Bush has challenged more sections of bills than all his predecessors combined - among them, a ban on torture.

Bush signing statements prompted widespread controversy when his record came to light in 2006. After Democrats took over Congress in 2007, Bush initially issued fewer and less aggressive signing statements. But his new statement returned to the previous approach, observers said.

The signing statement also targeted a provision in the defense bill that strengthens protections for whistle-blowers working for companies that hold government contracts (Section 846). The new law expands employees' ability to disclose wrongdoing without being fired, and it gives greater responsibility to federal inspectors general to investigate complaints of retaliation.

In addition, Bush targeted a section that requires intelligence agencies to turn over 'any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate or legal opinion' requested by the leaders of the House and Senate armed services committees within 45 days(Section 1079). If the president wants to assert executive privilege to deny the request, the law says, White House counsel must do so in writing.

Finally, Bush's signing statement raised constitutional questions about a section of the bill that established an independent, bipartisan 'Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan' to investigate allegations of waste, mismanagement, and excessive force by contractors (Section 841).

The law requires the Pentagon to provide information to the panel 'expeditiously' upon its request.

The signing statement did not make clear whether Bush is objecting to the creation of the commission because some of its members will be appointed by Congress or whether he is reserving the right to turn down its requests for information - or both.

Phillip Cooper, a political science professor at Portland State University, noted that Bush's statement does not clearly spell out the basis for any of his challenges. Cooper, who has been a pioneer in studying signing statements, said the vague language itself is a problem.

'It is very hard for Congress or the American people to figure out what is supposed to happen and what the implications of this are,' Cooper said.

The White House did not respond to a Globe request to explain the objections in greater detail. But the Bush administration has repeatedly insisted that its use of signing statements has been both lawful and appropriate.

Still, the signing statement makes one thing clear, according to David Barron, a Harvard law professor. The White House, he said, is pressing forward with its effort to establish that the commander in chief can defy laws limiting his options in national security matters. The administration made similar assertions in recent disputes over warrantless wiretapping and interrogation methods, he said.

'What this shows is that they're continuing to assert the same extremely aggressive conception of the president's unilateral power to determine how and when US force will be used abroad, and that's a dramatic departure from the American constitutional tradition,' said Barron, who was a Justice Department official in the 1990s.

In 2006, the American Bar Association condemned signing statements as 'contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers.'"

Here's a link to the NYTimes Op-Ed piece, The Fine Print, (January 30, 2008)

United for Peace & Justice call for Impeachment over Signing Statement (January 31, 2008)

A Rousing Rally for John Edwards

This morning I got up, checked my e-mail over my morning coffee, posted an entry to my blog that I had written the night before (see the following critique of Bush's last SOTU address), and headed out the door to a rally being held in North Tulsa at the Transportation Workers Union Local #514 Hall. The rally was being held for John Edwards. I realize that I may be perceived to be somewhat of a flip-flopper on my presidential choice for 2008. As I have explained to anybody who will listen, I know myself too well, and I know that once I choose a candidate, it will be very hard for me to switch my allegiance to another candidate come Convention time in Denver. So although I have posted entries on my blog that suggest that I am supporting Barack Obama (and I am impressed with his eloquent style, his vision of hope and unity, and his ability to inspire us to be our very best selves), and I have been vocal about my misgivings about Hillary Clinton, I am also a realist, and I know that whoever gets the nod in August from the Democratic Party is the candidate I will support in November. I have survived the ravages of a senseless, remorseless, ugly, and fear-based republican administration, and I will not in good conscience support any candidate that even hints at continuing any of Bush/Cheney's horrendous policies. So I went to hear Senator Edwards this morning, in large part to thank him for taking the time to stop and visit with a group of supporters here in Tulsa, Oklahoma (admittedly not the center of anyone's political universe), and once again and in person to applaud John Edwards' consistent message that this country has a huge problem, and at the root of the problem is a growing chasm between the ultra-rich and the very poor. John Edwards' "two Americas" theme is one that he has been espousing for many years, and it rings even truer today than it did when he first pointed it out to those of us whose situations are more comfortable than many other people's lives.

I was proud to be standing in the Tulsa Union Hall holding up a John Edwards for President sign, and I was prouder still that fellow Tulsans reserved their loudest applause and their longest standing ovation for Edwards' remarks about his plan to get the U.S. out of Iraq. It may be the "economy stupid," but here in the heartland of America, it is not completely lost on Okies that the economy here is inexorably tied to an ongoing and indefensible occupation halfway around the world. As I stepped out of the Hall after shaking Edwards' hand (twice), I was met with a very strong wind (40 mph, I later learned), and I thought that this breeze will blow clean across this country and sweep away the garbage that has piled up over the last seven years. It will sweep into power a new and better adminstration and things will change.

I just want to say to all of my friends and acquaintances who are so worried that the fight between Billary and Barack is going to tear the Democratic party apart - relax, we're Democrats, we pick and poke, but in the end we're not going to allow a republican, no matter how wealthy or devious he may be, claim the (White) House that will be ours in November. Viva la revolucion! Si se puede! Yes we can, and we will. Can't you just taste the change in the air?

Here's a link to the Fresno Bee's endorsement of John Edwards.

John Edwards for President 2008

Paul Krugman's column in the NYTimes (February 1, 2008), The Edwards Effect.

Thanks for Nothing, Dumbya's SOTU

I started out the day reading a few entries on a marvelous site put together by ProgressOhio.org entitled "This I believe is the Real State of Our Union." The overwhelming consensus of over 300 people who mostly live in Ohio (the should-have-been-swing state of the 2004 election) is that the State of Our Union Sucks - big time. People talked about the growing cost of gas, groceries, health care, and their shrinking or non-existent paychecks. They mentioned with disgust the ongoing occupation of Iraq and our collective desire to end that foreign entanglement and quit spending our children's and our grandchildren's futures in a country that never attacked us. They want to know whether there will be any safety net for them in old age, and how we will repair our shattered reputation abroad, not whether Iran may be, just may be, dreaming up a way to perhaps sometime in the future think about getting the plans to contemplate the beginnings of a civilian nuclear program... whaaaa? I wonder if the president has been briefed on the contents of his own NIE that stated clearly that Iran has ended their nuclear enrichment program over three years ago.

That set the stage for the lackluster performance that George W. Bush delivered tonight. I followed his talk along with the good and fun folks at Four Freedoms Blog (thanks mucho Mondo, Raine, Liv, VJ, & Tri). It helped me to stick it out and stay the course through another uninspired talk by an uninspirational president, I had to laugh at how much disgust was registered on the blog, how so much of the disgust we have expressed is more than six years old, and weighs so heavily on all of us who care so very much about our nation and feel as if we have been watching our country sink into quicksand.

Listening to Tweety (AKA Chris Matthews) wonder out loud why the president didn't use this opportunity to explain the connections between the stock market and the economy and the sub-prime housing fiasco - the anwer is simple, Tweety, the president can't explain something he himself doesn't understand. He is a moron.

Here are some of the stupidly more memorable lines (memorable only in the sense that they made me say "WTF?"):

"Embolden[ing] the purveyors of false populism" who writes this crap?

"American troops are shifting from leading operations to partnering with Iraqi forces and, eventually, to a protective overwatch mission." (translation: according to Bush/Cheney we will be in Iraq for freakin' ever).

Here are a few of the truly memorable (in the more widely understood sense of the word) lines that came out of pundits' and politicos' mouths in the aftermath of the president's nonsense:

"The speech was like boasting about his college record and listing nine incomplete classes."
Keith Olbermann, on the SOTU 2008

"This speech is out of touch, out of touch with the American people... he is totally out of touch with where the American people are. He was just checking the box like a salesman on his last day, just checking a box."
Joe Biden, on the SOTU 2008

"No challenge has been laid before the American people. No vision. Devoid of reality... This is the most disengaged speech I've ever heard."
Joe Biden on the SOTU 2008

"It was not a very memorable speech, not any very memorable lines..."
Pat Buchanan on the SOTU 2008

Here is a link to Governor Kathleen Sebelius's (Kansas) keen Democratic Response to the SOTU.
More later, I'm sure. This is just to get you all fired up first thing this morning...

Sunday Morning Activism =)

Good Sunday Morning Activists,
I am passing on an alert that I received from a woman named Mary Francis - a fellow Oklahoman who I don't know, but I'm guessing from her message that she won't mind me passing on the valuable information that she has compiled to encourage all of us to increase our voice in the democratic process. Here is her e-mail message, with minor changes:

Time for another citizen revolt! I just left a voice message with both Coburn and Inhofe (Oklahoma's senators). They take voicemail messages on the weekend!
Tom Coburn, (R) (202) 224-5754
James M. Inhofe, (R) (202) 224-4721

FISA legislation is on the Senate floor. The vote is Monday. Senator Dodd will filibuster again, but he needs help! Isn't our privacy worth an hour of your time? Please - thank Senator Christopher Dodd [CT] Washington, DC 202-224-2823, Wethersfield, CT 800-334-5341 for what he is willingto do again ... filibuster! Leave a message with Harry Reid and as many others as you can over the weekend.

Senator Harry Reid [NV] Washington, DC 202-224-3542 (DC mailbox full), Carson City, 775-882-7343, Las Vegas, 702-388-5020 (Both take messages) Reid can stop any bill at any time - just needs a stiffer backbone. Most senators take voicemail messages on the weekend. Following please find a list with key Senators and their contact information (including homestate phone numbers).

Please call as many as you can. Please....give an hour of your time. In Washington this weekend and Monday, the telecom lobbyists are launching a full-court press for retroactive immunity. Bush/Cheney are doing everything in their power to ensure it passes. And too many Senate Democrats are ready to give the lobbyists and the Bush administration exactly what they want. Senate Democrats MUST filibuster revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would give "retroactive immunity"to the giant telecom companies for their role in aiding George W. Bush's illegal eavesdropping on American citizens. Their corporate lawyers are not stupid. They knew what they were doing was UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Please tell every Senate Democrat to do everything in her/his power - including joining Senator Dodd's efforts to filibuster this legislation - to stop retroactiveimmunity and stand up for the rule of law. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price. Here are 27 key Senators to call first: (27 x 2 min each = less than an hour of your time).

Senator Blanche Lambert Lincoln [AR] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE, Washington, 202-224-4843, Texarkana, 870-774-3106, Little Rock, 501-375-2993

Senator Mark Pryor [AR] DEMOCRAT NOT SUPPORTING FILIBUSTER, Washington, 202-224-2353, Little Rock, 501-324-6336

Senator John McCain [AZ] Needs to be pressured, Washington, 202-224-2235, Press1 for voicemail, Tucson, 520-670-6334

Senator Ken Salazar [CO] DEMOCRAT NOT SUPPORTING FILIBUSTER, Washington, 202-224-5852 (DC mailbox full), Colorado Springs, 719-328-1100 (mailbox full), Grand Junction, 970-241-6631 (press 10)

Senator Joseph Lieberman [CT] SWING VOTE, Washington, 202-224-4041 (press 1), Hartford, 860-549-8463

Senator Joseph Biden [DE] DEMOCRAT must support Dodd's filibuster! Washington, 202-224-5042, Wilmington, 302-573-6345, Milford, 302-424-8090

Senator Thomas R Carper [DE] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE, Washington, 202-224-2441 (30 second message), Georgetown, 302-856-7690, Wilmington, 302-573-6291

Senator Bill Nelson [FL] DEMOCRAT- not supporting filibuster, Washington,202-224-5274, Tallahassee, 850-942-8415, West Palm Beach, 561-514-0189

Senator John Ensign [NV] Great Guy! Needs encouragement, Washington,202-224-6244, Reno, 775-686-5770, Las Vegas, 702-388-6605, Carson City,775-885-9111

Senator Edward M Kennedy [MA] Ask him to speak on the floor against immunity. Washington, 202-224-4543, Boston, 617-565-3170

Senator John F Kerry [MA] Washington, 202-224-2742 (press 1), Worcester,508-831-7380

Senator Charles Schumer [NY] Ask him to speak also! Washington, 202-224-6542 (no answer), Rochester, 585-263-5866 (wait for beep), Buffalo, 716-846-4111, New York, 212-486-4430

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton [NY] Yeah, Yeah Yeah -- Just call her. Washington, 202-224-4451 (DC mailbox full), Albany, 518-431-0120 (One minute message), New York, 212-688-6262, Syracuse, 315-448-0470

Senator George Voinovich [OH] An Honest Republican! Needs encouragement --has broken with Repubs before on torture, Washington, 202-224-3353 (2 minute message), Cincinnati, 513-684-3265, Columbus, 614-469-6697

Senator Arlen Specter [PA] Repub. OPPOSED to IMMUNITY, has shown firm support for the rule of law, Washington, 202-224-4254 (2 minute message), Philadelphia, 215-597-7200, Erie, 814-453-3010, Harrisburg, 717-782-3951, Scranton, 570-346-2006, Pittsburgh, 412-644-3400

Senator Jack Reed [RI] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE, Washington, 202-224-4642 (press 1), Cranston, 800-284-4200, Providence, 401-528-5200

Senator Shelton Whitehouse [RI] New Senator. Newbies usually pay close attention to phone calls. Washington, 202-224-2921, Providence, 401-453-5294, Newport, 401-845-0700

Senator Tim Johnson [SD] DEMOCRAT swing vote (He supported Alito's nomination but said he was "troubled" - so by now he should have seen the light), Washington, 202-224-5842, Aberdeen, 605-226-3440, Sioux Falls, 605-332-8896, Rapid City,605-341-3990

Senator John Warner [VA] Honest Repub. NOT running again - is ranking Rep. on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Washington, 202-224-2023, Norfolk, 757-441-3079

Senator Patrick Leahy [VT] DEMOCRAT- may oppose IMMUNITY, Washington, 202-224-4242, Burlington, 800-642-3193, Montpelier, 802-229-0569

Senator Bernie Sanders [VT] INDEPENDENT, Washington, 202-224-5141 (no answer), Burlington, 802-862-0697 (always busy), Brattleboro, 802-254-8732, Montpelier, 802-223-2241

Senator Patty Murray [WA] DEMOCRAT - sometimes swing vote, Washington, 202-224-2621, Everett, 425-259-6515, Seattle, 206-553-5545

Senator Maria Cantwell [WA] DEMOCRAT also a swing vote - needs encouragement, Washington, 202-224-3441(may re-record message), Everett, 425-303-0114, Tacoma, 253-572-2281, Seattle, 206-220-6400

Senator Herb Kohl [WI] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE, Washington, 202-224-5653, Appleton, 920-738-1640, Madison, 608-264-5338, Milwaukee, 800-247-5645

Senator Russell Feingold [WI] Usually does the right thing, Washington, 202-224-5323, LaCrosse, 608-782-5585

Senator Robert Byrd [WV] DEMOCRAT who should be URGED to PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION, Washington, 202-224-3954, Charleston, 304-342-5855

Senator John Rockefeller [WV] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE, Washington,202-224-6472, Charleston, 304-347-5372

Love this country....it has great potential. We must pass these rights on to our children and grandchildren.

Many, many thanks to Mary Francis, whoever and wherever you are =)

Shillary - Still Not Gracious After All These Years...

The Clintons just don't get it - we, and in that collective pronoun I am referring to progressives, liberals, democrats (both yellow and blue dog), independents and a smattering of not-too-closed-minded republicans, are sick and tired of the politics that divide us. We want a uniter and we like what we see in Senator Barack Obama. I have always admired Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg who this morning endorsed Senator Obama in the NYTimes writing that "I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans." She is, of course, referring to the man of the hour, Barack Obama.

Those of you who have been following my take on the political scene will recall that my initial objection to Senator Hillary Clinton centered around her "electability." As a resident of oh-so-red Oklahoma and a frequent visitor to even redder Indiana, I have seen first hand the kind of wrath that the right-wing reserves for the Clintons, and my fear has always been that the only true danger that lay before the Democrats in November is the prospect of a mobilized right-wing base. And I have maintained all along that no candidate can mobilize that base like Hillary Clinton, but last night after a week of questionable campaign tactics - many of them demonstrated by Senator Clinton's husband, former president Bill Clinton, I found yet another reason to support Hillary's opponents. Senator Clinton's utter lack of graciousness and her obtuse denial of the voice of the voters in South Carolina turned me off in a way that I will not soon forget. The fact that she had her husband deliver her not-really-a-concession speech, and then she gave less than a second or two to her incredible drubbing in her own speech that was delivered not from South Carolina, but rather Nashville, Tennessee, was to my eyes and ears not just a shocking lack of courtesy, but also a demonstration of poor sportspersonship that left a bitter and ugly taste in my mouth. In short, the more I see of the Clinton team on the campaign trail the less I am inclined to support them, EVEN IF THEY DO MANAGE to GET the NOMINATION. I know, I know, that kind of attitude could leave the country in the hands of a president McCain, and I vowed early on that I would work my butt off for whomever the Democratic nominee turns out to be, but I'm just saying, I may not work with such enthusiasm if the nominee turns out to be Hillary Clinton. The more I see of her and her husband during this race, the less I see them as agents of change, rather they are looking more and more like the same old, same old, politics as usual, of which I believe a majority of the country is sick and tired.

In stark contrast to Senator Clinton's snarky little Nashville speech, was Senator Obama's magnanimous speech that once again reminded me of the grand oratory that has been so sorely lacking in an American leader for the last eight years. In his speech, he spoke to the people's hunger for unity and true vision and leadership that we have gone without during the Bush/Cheney years. He spoke eloquently of an America and a wider world community of which I am once again eager to be a part (rather than a world in which travellers abroad are inclined to tell locals that they are Canadian, rather than American, in order to ensure a more positive reception).

I have officially joined the Barack Obama camp, although I still have great admiration for John Edwards, and I truly appreciate his contribution to the debates that have thus far formed this campaign. His message of "two Americas," his tireless effort to remind the better-offs that there are still those who go to bed hungry and under bridges in this great nation, his unflinching stand with unions and working people, and his ongoing reminder that the middle class is dying in this country and the enormously tragic consequences that that demise will have on our land as a whole, are all important and vital issues that the Democrats neglect at their peril. I would love to see an Obama/Edwards ticket, but I fear that Mr. Edwards having already accepted the running mate position in an unsuccessful campaign is unlikely to go down that road again.

See Frank Rich's column in today's NYTimes: The Billary Road to Republican Victory

Here's a link to coverage of Senator Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama: Obama Ready on 'Day One,' Kennedy Says (Washington Post, January 28, 2008)

Toni Morrison Endorses Obama for President

How Will You Spend Your $600?

Syndicated columnist Molly Ivins said of progressive journalist David Sirota, "Sirota is a new-generation populist who instinctively understands that the only real questions are 'Who's getting screwed?' and 'Who's doing the screwing?'"

It shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone who has been paying attention that the Bush/Cheney administration is doing the screwing and once again it is the American people who are getting screwed. The much touted "Stimulus Package" (don't you dare criticize the size of the president's package =) has been unveiled - although a quick Google search for "Economic Stimulus Package 2008" (the Plan) while listing numerous links to stories, commentaries, and criticisms of the Plan, revealed not one link to the Plan itself. Perhaps that is because Congress is not finished tinkering with the Plan, nothing is yet written in stone. The Senate still has an opportunity to add much needed relief for workers who have been unemployed for more than six months and to add food security for the neediest among us who may be going to bed hungry. However it is highly unlikely given the lack of fight or backbone shown by the Democratically-led Congress thus far. But if the Plan goes through as Bush has insisted that it must, it will represent another huge gift to big business at a time when all the previous gifts to business have gotten us where we are today. Where we are today is deep into a recession that is beginning to look like a bonafide depression to those of us who actually buy groceries, fill our cars up with gas, and try valiently to pay our bills on time.

Here's what two bloggers at Huffington Post had to say about Bush/Cheney's gift to big business:
"For seven years, the Bush administration has pandered to corporate interests, and we've seen the results: soaring profits with stagnant wages and rising income inequality. Now that the nation is facing serious economic reversals, it's time for Democrats to challenge the reasoning that every time average people get boost, businesses need one too." Nancy Cleeland and Lawrence Mishel, It's a Bad Deal! (January 24, 2008)

One of my favorite bloggers over the last year has been David Sirota, whose weekly newspaper column is syndicated by Creators.com. Sirota is the author of the book Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government--and How We Take It Back. Sirota blogs daily at Credo action. He is also a senior fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and board member of the Progressive States Network (both 501(c)(3) organizations), and he had a few choice words for the Stimulus Package that was crafted by the White House and the now traitorous Nancy Pelosi and the spineless wonder Harry Reid:
"There's nothing inherently bad about Washington interacting with Big Business, and nothing conceptually wrong with 'stimulus' as a concept. But as this recession intensifies, there's a big problem with politicians catering exclusively to Big Business and an even bigger problem with converting "stimulus" into yet another code word for 'swindle.'" David Sirota, The Stimulus Swindle (January 25, 2008)

I don't know about you all, but if there's anything left over from my (not tax-free) rebate from a government that hasn't demonstrated the financial acuity that god gave a raisin, then I will send it to the ACLU or Planned Parenthood or the Native American Rights Fund or some other organization that really might help the people of this country. I hope that if you are not hungry or homeless tonight that you will consider doing the same.

Here's the most complete run-down of the Economic Stimulus Plan that I have been able to locate to date: Rebates could be in your hands by May

935 Lies and Counting...

935 Lies and Counting...

The question is "Who's counting?" and the answer is the Center for Public Integrity was and the number of lies told by members of the current administration in just under two years (2001 - 2003) was 935 lies, falsehoods, fibs, untruths, outright, blatant, boldface, prefabricated LIES, that led us into the unnecessary, illegal, immoral, catastrophic, tragic war in Iraq.

And it turns out that these lies are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to crimes committed in furtherance of the occupation of Iraq. Those are just the tally of the lies that got us into Iraq, never mind the lies that keep us there, and the lies that are being told right now that will keep the U.S. in Iraq far into the next administration. Although I would recommend that the next president's first order of business would be to cancel all previous executive orders, signing statements, and any other non-congressionally-approved arrangements that were made by Bush/Cheney - not unlike the reneging frenzy of all things Clinton that Bush/Cheney engaged in as soon as they got into office - but unlike the Bush/Cheney's reversal of course, the reversal of Bush/Cheney policy would have a positive impact on the country and the world. Just a suggestion. I hate to think that future administrations' hands will be tied by the egregious policy blunders made by the Bush/Cheney administration.

BTB, I thought that the NYTimes endorsing Hillary Clinton was a ho-hum moment, much more interesting to me was the lukewarm endorsement of John McCain, and the accurate, scathing remarks that the editorial board of the NYTimes had to say about the other Republican contenders - complete and total losers, every one. Which brings me back to a point that I've made before and I'm sure I'll make again before the Democrats hold their convention in Denver in July and that is the DEMOCRATS MUST WIN the WHITE HOUSE in November! And to that end, I am worried sick that if the Dems give the nomination to Hillary Clinton, we will be signing away our chance to take back the presidency in 2008. May I remind readers that the Clinton/McCain polls show that the race is too close to call? I don't know about you, but I don't think I can stand another nail biter of an election that may very well end up in a Supreme Court that has turned further to the right than it was eight years ago. Just my two cents, but it's change worth mentioning...

See: Long-Term Pact with Iraq Raises Questions

See: U.S. to Insist Iraq Grant It Wide Mandate in Operations

A Blogging Fool

I'm really, truly not trying to set some kind of record for new posts in a day, but damn, I guess I've just got a lot to say or show or post or something. If you don't find something that you like among the pieces that I've posted this week (from the Library of Congress's new venture with Flickr to a piece on the West Memphis Three to an announcement about a new Steph Fan Site and a new film about the punk poet extraordinaire, Patti Smith) then you and I, well we just don't live in the same world, and you probably won't be visiting this blog again, and that's okay with me.

Anyway, to cap off a busy day in the blogosphere - I end today with another MF collage. This one features my dear sweet devilish doggie Dylan (Dillie-doo-doo) who whispered into my ear a few weeks ago that he was planning on throwing his 70 pounds behind the presidential ticket of Goldwater/Miller 2008. Being an active little scallywag, he rushed out and formed a group that he calls "Hound Dogs for Goldwater/Miller 2008" and no, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are not welcome - Dillie sez, "It ain't that kinda hound dog - dawg." Anyway, he wanted me to post the collage that features his Goldwater/Miller 2008 Club House, and he also wanted me to call in this morning and ask CC and Steph what's the deal with their candidacy.

Dillie's older brother Tulsey has been parading around the house all full of himself 'cause he's for Obama. You see, Tulsey is a Momma's boy and is easily confused and when he heard "Momma's for Obama" he immediately thought that it referred to his Momma (me), and so he wasted no time jumping on the Obama bandwagon. Tulsey was insufferable after the Iowa caucus, but he has toned down his snootiness since Hillary took New Hampshire and Nevada (although Tulse is quick to point out that Obama got more delegates than Clinton did in Nevada). Our household is on pins and needles waiting to see what happens in South Carolina on Saturday. "Vamos a ver" as we say at Chez Faye... (mixing our languages as we are want to do =)

Another Shout Out to Patti

Loyal and long-time readers of this blog know that I love me some Patti Smith (see an earlier highly censored post about Patti - if you'd like to read the original post before it was gutted, feel free to e-mail me at mfh913@gmail.com and I'd be glad to share it with you =). Anyway, Patti Smith is back in the news. Patti has been at Sundance (the Film Festival) where a new documentary Patti Smith: Dream of Life is debutting. Patti also got a shout out in an exceedingly enjoyable film Juno that stars, and I do mean stars, Ellen Page as the title character (and I do mean character). Patti thanked Juno for the shout out. So I just wanted to add my own little SHOUT OUT to Patti, and say keep on rockin' grrrl - your voice gives power to the people and damn do we need that power now.

See The Carpetbagger's blog post High on Rebellion (NYTimes, January 22, 2008)

See also Reuters article Patti Smith at Sundance: “It ain’t drugs” (January 22, 2008)

New Fun Stephanie Fan Site

Here's news about a fun Stephanie Miller Fan web site designed and managed by Tim from Dallas, who is not affiliated with The Stephanie Miller Show and who apparently has too much free time. Here's the link to the site: Stephanie Miller's Future Husbands Club. Check it out and admire his photoshop skills - they rock!

Barack Obama Speaking at Ebenezer Baptist Church

Here's a link to an excellent MLK Jr. post by one of my favorite bloggers - David Sirota: Are We Ready to Rise Up Again?

John T. Vance (Oct. 12, 1921 - Jan. 15, 2008)

For the Indians: A Remembrance of John T. Vance

Mildred Pierce, John T. Vance, Jerome Kuykendall, Brantley Blue, Richard W. Yarborough

On May 20, 2001 I had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of John T. Vance, the former Chairman of the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) and a Commissioner of the same Commission for over ten years. John Vance was named to the Commission as Chairman on March 19, 1968 by President Johnson, was removed from the role of Chairman of the Commission by President Nixon, but continued to serve nobly on the ICC as a Commissioner until it ceased to exist in 1978. That simple meeting on that spring day on the University of Tulsa campus would lead to a friendship that lasted for several happy years – until John moved north, first to Montana and finally to Portland, Oregon. During the last several years I was friends with John, I witnessed him struggle to articulate a vision that I believe he brought with him to his work at the ICC and has carried with him throughout his life – a vision in which Native people of this country receive the respect and are repaid the huge debt that we as a nation owe them, not only for the very land that we walk on every day, but for the spirit of this place that we now call the United States of America. John Vance and I share a very deep regard for Native people and for their contributions to this country – from the Great Law of the Longhouse of the Iroquois that was so influential in the writing of our own Constitution to the treaties that have been systematically broken by our own government to the casinos that today provide a spark of economic possibility to those who have been left out of the “American Dream.” John’s vision of the goal of the ICC is best reflected in the words of President Harry S. Truman when he signed into law the act that established the Indian Claims Commission in 1946:

“...that this bill will mark the beginning of a new era for our
Indian Citizens. They have valiantly served on every battlefront.
They have proved by their loyalty the wisdom of a national
policy built upon fair dealing. With the final settlement of all
outstanding claims which this measure insures, Indians can take
their place without special handicap or special advantage in the
economic life of our nation and share fully in its progress.”1

Unfortunately, the Indian Claims Commission did not achieve its goal, but that was not due to the untiring efforts of John Vance. If it had been left up to John Vance, the Native people of this country would have been paid in-full every cent that they are owed, and I do believe that John Vance would have found a way to return the sacred Black Hills to the Sioux Nation. But one man acting alone can only do so much. That is why I write this memorial with such a heavy heart – not only for the Native people who will likely never receive what they are owed, but for the efforts of one man who wanted so desperately to change the manner in which this government dealt with the Native nations of this country. As I watched John Vance’s powers diminish from the ravages of Alzheimer's – I thought that with John went a great story, a story that we may never know or understand, a story of how, in spite of great odds to the contrary, a small group of individuals tried to do the right thing. I wish that John Vance was still the vibrant, healthy man he once was, but nevertheless, his legacy of hope and “doing the right thing” lives on in the lives of those he has touched. I share his hope that someday this world will realize that the land that we call home was stolen generations ago from a group of people who have never received what they were promised for this taking. To this end, we still must fight in an effort to “do the right thing.” I thank John Vance for his efforts yesterday and his influence today to continue this struggle, and I wish those who knew and loved John the strength, hope and heart to carry on his dream.

1August 3, 1946, Public Papers of the President, Harry S. Truman, 1946, 414 (1962).

Free the West Memphis Three

A few years ago, after reading Margaret Cho's excellent screed I Have Chosen to Stay and Fight, I was prompted by a mention in Cho's book to rent the video, Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills (1996). I was intrigued by the documentary that told the story of three young men (teenagers at the time they were accused) who were arrested, tried and convicted of the horrific murders of three eight year old boys in the woods near a working class neighborhood known as Robin Hood Hills in West Memphis, Arkansas. The initial documentary was followed up four years later by a sequel entitled Paradise Lost 2: Revelations (2000).

After watching both of these films and doing a bit or research on my own, it became clear to me that these three young men had been falsely accused and convicted on little more than bias against the dark clothes they wore, the dark side of life that fascinated them (as it does so many teenagers), the music that they listened to, and the general perception in a very narrow-minded community that they were outsiders. Although this crime occured back in 1993, there is reason to reconsider this case anew, as DNA analysis of evidence, not available at the time of the trial, has shown conclusively that no DNA from any of the three accused was found on the bodies or at the scene of the crime.

Attorneys for Echols, Misskelley and Baldwin have filed a motion for a new hearing. The judge should rule on this motion by February 15, 2008 and is expected to set a date for a new hearing sometime this spring. I recommend that anyone with an interest in justice, rent and watch both of the films mentioned above and read Damien Echols book, Almost Home My Life Story vol. 1. And if you feel so moved, you might want to send a contribution to the Damien Echols Defense Fund. (Damien Echols is on Death Row in Arkansas for this crime that he did not commit, while both of his co-defendants are incarcerated, also in Arkansas - Jason Baldwin is serving life without parole and Jessie Misskelley is serving life plus 40 years).

Larry King interviews Damien Echols, (December 19, 2007) CNN, with a link to the transcripts of the interview.

Free the West Memphis Three.

Library of Congress Photos on Flickr

These are a few of my favorite photos from the Library of Congress Flickr Collection - click on the headline above to see the photos in a slideshow.

Excuse me for reverting to my other (professional) life for this one post. I am, after all, a radical militant LIBRARIAN, and yesterday as I was sitting at the reference desk - yes, the reference desk is staffed on Saturday afternoons - I discovered a fabulous web site launched by the Library of Congress in conjunction with the photo-sharing site "Flickr" that makes available online over 3000 photos mostly from the 1940s and black & white photos from the 1910s, all copyright free!!! Check them out here.

The photos from the 1940s feature many shots of real life "Rosie-the-Riveters" along with many pictures of plane, trains, smoke stacks, lovely photos of the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and countless images of Americana. From Pie Town, NM to the rural south, the photos show a wide range of life and scenery that captures a country at war.

The black and white photos from the 1910s feature many early ball players (mostly baseball, but a few football), boxers, politicians, strikes, crowds scenes, many shots of NYC and many photos that merely depict life as it was being lived in the decade that included World War I.

This nicest thing about all of the photos is that they may be borrowed, used, reproduced, or downloaded without attribution or worry about copyright violations.

And Still the Wars Grind On

Stewart mocks Bush's Middle East 'Bucket List'
(Raw Story, January 16, 2008)

The Wars Grind On - where's the media coverage?

We are approaching the 4000th death of United States troops in Iraq, nevermind the untold thousands who have come home with life-changing wounds and mental trauma that will likely haunt them for the rest of their lives, and yet, the media seems to have bought into the "surge is a smashing success" spin that is coming out of the White House. And according to that story line, no mention is made of the fact that the Iraqi government has met none of the political benchmarks for which the surge was supposed to provide cover.

Little mention of the wars that rage on is heard on the campaign trail as the topic du jour is the "economy stupid." May I remind the news heads and political junkies out there (of which I count myself) that there have been signs that Bush's ill-advised tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would lead us down this path from the get-go? So now the chickens are coming home to roost, and we are supposed to be surprised that the trickle down economics popularized by Ronald Reagan and the obscene spending that Bush/Cheney's foreign policies have cost us are hurting our collective bottom line at home. Those of use who live basically paycheck to paycheck could have told the powers that be - had they bothered to ask - that this recession has been in the works for the last seven years. Those of us who struggle to pay our mortgages, fill up our gas tanks, and pay unexpected medical bills could have told those insulated jerks who live inside the beltway that this country has been in a recession for at least a year.

I guess that we should be excited that the feds may send us an extra few hundred dollars (a tax refund advance that we will no doubt have to pay taxes on later) this years when we file our tax returns. But once again, Bush/Cheney have missed the point. The point is that the current administration has been spending our money like a drunken sailor on wars that produce nothing worthwhile, but have greatly harmed our reputation in the world. They've spent their way into this mess and then they propose to spend their way out - this gang is clueless until the end.

It is my contention that no economic stimulus will make a dent in our recession or outright depression until the wars are ended and troops are brought home. I still maintain that it is not too late to bring impeachment charges against Bush and Cheney. They must go. They have committed many high crimes and misdeamenors.

Bush is busy palling around the Middle East waiving swords and holding hands with kings and shieks who suppress any dissident voice that may try to point out the utter lack of freedom in their respective countries. His apparent policy is peace through weapons as he brokered a 20 billion dollar weapons sale to Saudi Arabia. His lame attempt to try to turn a warmongering administration into a legacy of peacemaking is as transparent as it is impossible. Bush/Cheney's true legacy will obviously be hatred abroad and economic collapse at home. Thanks loads =(

Robert Fisk: Bloody reality bears no relation to the delusions of this President (The Independent, January 19, 2008)

How The Arab Press Sees Bush Trip (CBS News, January 13, 2008)

Joe Conason's piece on TruthOut: What They Call "Progress" in Iraq (January 16, 2008)

Another excellent article on TruthOut: What Is He [Bush] Capable Of? The Presidential Psychology at the End of Days (January 10, 2008)

Help Pass Indian Health Care Legislation

Dear Loyal Readers of this Blog,
Excuse the recent foray into Native American issues, but in case you haven't noticed, nearer to my heart than even the Stephanie Miller Show, are all issues Native. And with the presidential election coverage in full swing, I want to be sure that voters do not forget or ignore issues that face the First Americans. To this end, I am posting the following e-mail that I sent, not to Stephanie Miller, but rather to Senators Coburn and Inhofe (two more obscene and wrong-minded individuals you are unlikely to meet). They are the senators from the state where I reside (Oklahoma) and although they are embarrassments to every thinking Oklahoman, they are our voices in the U.S. Senate, so I must contact them from time to time and attempt to remind them that they are supposed to represent all Oklahomans, not just the right-wing fringe that put them in office and whose values they carry with them to Washington D.C.

Here's the e-mail:
I am writing to urge you to support the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (S. 1200). The vote will likely take place next Tuesday, and I encourage you to vote to enact this important piece of legislation that will help this country keep its promises to the First Americans. The treaties that we signed with Native nations are more than just pieces of paper - they are the supreme law of the land and should be honored as such. This is not a handout; rather it is an obligation that we must honor with our actions. I urge you not only to support this important legislation, but also to pass it without amendments that might weaken the bill. I would appreciate knowing how you vote - I will be following your actions and I will vote accordingly in the fall. In a state that has such a significant Native population, I hope that you will honor the Federal Government's obligations to the Native people of this state and country and pass this bill without delay.

Friends Committee on National Legislation

U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs

Bush Threatens to Veto Indian Health Care Bill

Where Were the Questions from Native America?

Once again, I am disappointed. I sat down after a 12 + hour day at work and eagerly anticipated finally having a chance to hear a question from Indian Country posed to the Democratic candidates, and I was let down again. I can only imagine how the original inhabitants of this land must have felt when they saw the white settlers come over the rise onto land that the federal government had so recently promised would be theirs as long as the grass grows and the rivers run. It is a disappointment that runs so deep in a people, that it is almost expected, it is certainly the norm. I am ashamed of the history of mistreatment of the people who were here when our forebears first arrived on these shores. I am ashamed that even today, treaty responsibilities are dishonored, legal obligations are ignored, and proud communities across this country survive in poverty without the means to provide for their families.

Last night I thought, well. at least Native Americans will have a small voice in a big conversation - a chance to ask a question at a nationally-televised debate, the focus of which was African-Americans and Hispanics. No mention was made of the over two dozen tribes that make their homes in Nevada. The candidates mentioned absent African-American fathers, Hispanic workers and even made a few passing references to Asian-Americans, but not once did I hear a mention of the Western Shoshone people (on whose traditional homeland the much-discussed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository is located) nor any other Native nation that has been a part of this country since before we were a country. Tonight I am disappointed, angry, and sad, but it makes me vow to fight even harder for Natives' voices to be heard in the political arena. Indeed, When Indians Vote, America Wins!

Tonight's Democratic Debate - Watch It!

Tonight the Native American Network (NAN - a project of INDN's List Education Fund) in Nevada is preparing to make history for Indian Country by ensuring that the influence of Native caucus goers is THE story coming out of the nation's second caucuses. But they've already succeeded in making national political history. Native issues will, for the first time ever, be included in a nationally televised debate.

Tune in to MSNBC tonight, to see our presidential candidates debate some of the issues facing Indian Country. The debate will air at 8pm CST, 9pm EST.

After reading about an upcoming debate hosted by Hispanic and African American groups in Nevada, which will be televised live on MSNBC, State Director Louis Gray led the charge to include Native issues in the forum.

We couldn't be more excited to be making political history for Indian Country, and we want you with us. Tune in to MSNBC on January 15, and contribute today to ensure our success in Nevada and to allow us to move on to other critical battlegrounds in 2008!

On MSNBC, we'll be proving that When Indians Vote, America Wins!

A Very Dangerous Law

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
"Let's not beat around the bush. The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by folks believed to skew Democratic."
Judge Terence Evans, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Dissenting Opinion, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board



On Wednesday, January 9, 2008 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case captioned: William Crawford et. al. v. Marion County Election Board et. al. and the Democratic Party of Indiana et. al. This case was initiated by the Americal Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) along with the Democratic Party of Indiana in response to an onerous law passed by the Indiana State Legislature which requires that each and every voter show a government issued photo ID before casting a ballot (see: Indiana Public Law 109-2005). This may on its face, seem like a reasonable request, but it is problematic for at least two reasons: 1) the class of voter that would most likely to be burdened by this law is overwhelmingly poor, elderly, and more than likely a member of a minority group - all indicators that point to a demographic that historically has voted Democratic, and 2) the fraud that this law is meant to avoid has never been recorded nor observed in the entire history of elections in the Hoosier state or for that matter anywhere in the country.

Help America Vote Republican Act of 2002

Unfortunately the right-leaning Supreme Court gave every indication that that they would not only uphold this burdensome law, but may also sanction the party that brought the lawsuit (See: Justices Indicate They May Uphold Voter ID Rules, NYTimes, January 10, 2008). What can we do? Must we wait until someone is actually turned away at the polls and then file a lawsuit. This is the scenario that Justice Ginsburg was imagining when she made the following comment during oral arguments:“The reason they are bringing a facial challenge is because the horse is going to be out of the barn. They will have the election, and just what they are afraid of could happen — that the result will be skewed in favor of the opposite party.”

Why Elections Matter

This provides even more evidence of why elections matter. It was, after all, the Supreme Court that ended the vote counting that would have no doubt revealed that Al Gore was the true victor in 2000 and handed the presidency to George W. Bush. And the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have further skewered the court to the right, further politicizing the branch of government that arguably should be the least politicized branch of the three. Justice John Paul Stevens is still there - realizing that the balance of the court hangs in his retirement or god-forbid his death, but thankfully the Democratic-controlled Senate should be able to stave off an appointment to the High Court should Justice Stevens be unable to continue for any reason (see an earlier post on this blog: Long Live Justice John Paul Stevens).

This is just another important reason why we all need to work like hell to elect Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or John Edwards - in other words, whoever the Democratic nominee is, to protect the judicial branch from becoming a tool of one party rather than the rarified and esteemed bench that it was intended to be.

See NYTimes Letter to the Editor: Should Voter ID Be Required?

For a complete list of links to all documents filed in this case, please see: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/indy-dems.php.

Beyond Iowa & NH - A War Rages On...

Excuse me for not celebrating this morning, I am not really all that excited that Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary. I still maintain that Hillary is not electable and that nominating her will set the country up for at least four more years of GOP horror, and it is that ongoing horror that I would like to remind readers of this morning. Billions of dollars are still going to Iraq on a daily basis, Iraqis are still dying, U.S. soldiers are still dying, and there is NO END in SIGHT.

Meantime back here in this country, we are deliberating and in many cases celebrating a primary victory of a candidate who voted not only to send troops to Iraq, but has never missed an opportunity to vote to fund the war, and to add insult to injury, this same candidate voted for the Lieberman/Kyl amendment - a most unhelpful piece of legislation that labels the Iranian Guard a terrorist organization (nothing provocative about that, is there?). Anyway, before we all decide that we prefer experience over a real change in leadership, let's consider what this experience has brought us so far. It has brought us an endless war that Ms. Clinton cannot even promise will be over after she has been in office for four years (that remark alone should give every good Democrat pause before they cast their lot with another Clinton). Speaking of another Clinton - I think that the Bush - Clinton - Bush - (Clinton?) line-up needs to be shaken up. Twenty-eight years of essentially a two-family-rule sounds downright un-American, and I think every voter should seriously consider whether continuing this tit for tat presidential carousel should be perpetuated.

This is not the end of the war in Iraq nor the political war here in this country. I'm hoping that the real war (Iraq) ends sometime soon, because no true reconciliation can even begin to happen here at home without addressing conflicts/differences in a more constructive way abroad.

See AlterNet's article: Beyond NH: Campaign Promises Are Empty Until the War Ends.